NATION

PASSWORD

[Submitted] Maritime Safety and Disaster Response

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

[Submitted] Maritime Safety and Disaster Response

Postby New Jorsonn » Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:20 pm

Category: International Security Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
  1. they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
  2. are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
  3. can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
  1. last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
  2. relevant communication frequencies,
  3. the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
  4. the nearest safe port available;

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.

November 8 2019 Draft:
Understanding the importance of maritime safety to the member nations of the World Assembly with coastlines

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing organizations traversing international waters

Recognizing that disasters in international waters happen and that there are few organizations established to deal with them

Devoted to saving sailors and airmen imperiled on the sea

Acknowledging the inherent risk involved in conducting life-saving operations in international waters

Believing that the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters

Confident that the reduction or elimination of fatal seafaring disasters is possible with increased international cooperation.

The World Assembly Hereby
1. Establishes the World Assembly Maritime Safety Organization (WAMSO)

2. Empowers the WAMSO to coordinate communication between international navies, coast guard forces, and civilian or commercial vessels and aircraft when disasters occur in international waters

3. Requires World Assembly Member States' navies, coast guards, and civilian or commercial vessels and aircraft to respond to disasters in international waters within their operational range

4. Provides the following exceptions to article 3:
a) When there is a significant chance of loss of life on the part of the responding nation
b) When the ships or aircraft called to respond would be unable to return to shore afterward for any reason
c) When a responding party is unequipped to respond effectively

5. Requires that World Assembly Member States share pertinent information with the WAMSO including:
a) Last known cargo manifest and passenger list of a vessel or aircraft traveling from their nation in danger in international waters
b) Location data for ships and aircraft in proximity to seafaring vessels or aircraft in danger and available to respond
c) Communications frequencies with coast guard vessels and aircraft that are available to respond to seafaring disasters

6. Declares that the WAMSO will not share any information provided from articles 4 or 5 to any other nation except for the purposes of coordinating life-saving operations.


October 27 2019 Draft:
Understanding the importance of maritime safety to the member nations of the World Assembly with coastlines

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing organizations traversing international waters

Recognizing that disasters in international waters happen and that there are few organizations established to deal with them

Devoted to saving sailors and airmen imperiled on the sea

Acknowledging the inherent risk involved in conducting life-saving operations in international waters

Believing that the International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters

Confident that the reduction or elimination of fatal seafaring disasters is possible with increased international cooperation.

Hereby
1. Establishes the World Assembly Maritime Safety Organization (WAMSO)

2. Empowers the WAMSO to coordinate communication between international navies and coast guard forces when disasters occur in international waters

3. Requires World Assembly Member States' navies and / or coast guards to respond to disasters in international waters within their operational range

4. Provides the following exceptions to article 3:
a) When there is a significant chance of loss of life on the part of the responding nation
b) When the ships or aircraft called to respond would be unable to return to shore afterward for fuel or damage reasons
c) When a state of war exists between the party in danger and the party asked to respond

5. Requires that World Assembly Member States share pertinent information with the WAMSO including:
a) Last known cargo manifest and passenger list of a vessel traveling from their nation in danger in international waters
b) Location data for coast guard vessels and aircraft in proximity to seafaring vessels in danger
c) Communications frequencies with coast guard vessels and aircraft that are available to respond to seafaring disasters

6. Declares that the WAMSO will not share any information provided from articles 4 or 5 to any other nation except for the purposes of coordinating life-saving operations.
Last edited by New Jorsonn on Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:39 am, edited 14 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9007
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:30 pm

I'm interested in this. I think it could be expanded as well, to cover more topics perhaps relating to maritime hazards as well. Telegram me if you'd like to cooperate.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Fleeta
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Oct 01, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Fleeta » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:16 am

New Jorsonn wrote:3. Requires World Assembly Member States' navies and / or coast guards to respond to disasters in international waters within their operational range and at their discretion


What exactly is at the discretion of the navies or coast guards? Is it the response to disasters, or operational range? The 'discretion' granted seems to contradict the operational clause by making international response optional. Perhaps I am interpreting this incorrectly.

"Further, who determines the operational range of a navy or coast guard? This needs to be predetermined so that a nation cannot reject response during a crisis by claiming their operational range is indeed less than its potential."

4. Provides the following exceptions to section 3:
a) When the danger of disaster response is deemed too great by a responding nation
b) When the ships or aircraft called to respond would be unable to return to shore afterward for fuel or damage reasons
c) When a state of war exists between the party in danger and the party asked to respond


"Could a nation not default on Exception A in every situation? Again, a nation needs to be assessed for potential through some kind of evaluation that determines a nations ability. My nation virtually could deem every danger response as too great, and there is no outlined penalty for doing so."

"Otherwise, this bill is solid. Just needs specified and fool proofed."

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:56 am

Fleeta wrote:
New Jorsonn wrote:3. Requires World Assembly Member States' navies and / or coast guards to respond to disasters in international waters within their operational range and at their discretion


What exactly is at the discretion of the navies or coast guards? Is it the response to disasters, or operational range? The 'discretion' granted seems to contradict the operational clause by making international response optional. Perhaps I am interpreting this incorrectly.

"Further, who determines the operational range of a navy or coast guard? This needs to be predetermined so that a nation cannot reject response during a crisis by claiming their operational range is indeed less than its potential."

4. Provides the following exceptions to section 3:
a) When the danger of disaster response is deemed too great by a responding nation
b) When the ships or aircraft called to respond would be unable to return to shore afterward for fuel or damage reasons
c) When a state of war exists between the party in danger and the party asked to respond


"Could a nation not default on Exception A in every situation? Again, a nation needs to be assessed for potential through some kind of evaluation that determines a nations ability. My nation virtually could deem every danger response as too great, and there is no outlined penalty for doing so."

"Otherwise, this bill is solid. Just needs specified and fool proofed."


3. The idea of member nations responding to disasters at their discretion is because I believe that the responding parties in a maritime disaster will know their own capabilities better than the WAMSO would. I am unwilling to write the bill in such a way as to force international forces to respond to what is likely to be a dangerous situation. I am able to budge on this if I find that other members of the WA would support that more authoritarian take. The operational range of the responding parties will be defined as the maximum range at which a ship or airplane can respond to an emergency in a timely fashion and have enough fuel to return to shore afterward. Therefore it is affected by speed, fuel usage, and fuel reserves.

4. The idea of disaster response danger being too great, while offering a convenient loophole to any cowardly naval or coast guard officers or nations, is in place so that no nation can be forced into a situation where they may lose a vehicle and the lives on it. If this clause were not present in the bill, any ship in the location of a dangerous hurricane would have to respond due to international law and there would be much worse loss of life than otherwise would exist. The WAMSO is in place to coordinate response efforts to maritime disasters, not force nations to respond to them. That being said, it has been the law of the sea for decades to help any ship in peril if it is in your power to do so, regardless of whether your ship is civilian or military. The WAMSO is there to help coordinate that effort.

If you have any ideas on how to better convey these ideas in the bill, I am all ears.
Last edited by New Jorsonn on Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5359
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:42 am

New Jorsonn wrote:4. The idea of disaster response danger being too great, while offering a convenient loophole to any cowardly naval or coast guard officers or nations, is in place so that no nation can be forced into a situation where they may lose a vehicle and the lives on it. If this clause were not present in the bill, any ship in the location of a dangerous hurricane would have to respond due to international law and there would be much worse loss of life than otherwise would exist. The WAMSO is in place to coordinate response efforts to maritime disasters, not force nations to respond to them. That being said, it has been the law of the sea for decades to help any ship in peril if it is in your power to do so, regardless of whether your ship is civilian or military. The WAMSO is there to help coordinate that effort.

(OOC: Try ‘a) When there is a significant chance of loss of life on the part of the responding nation’.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:56 am

Kenmoria wrote:
New Jorsonn wrote:4. The idea of disaster response danger being too great, while offering a convenient loophole to any cowardly naval or coast guard officers or nations, is in place so that no nation can be forced into a situation where they may lose a vehicle and the lives on it. If this clause were not present in the bill, any ship in the location of a dangerous hurricane would have to respond due to international law and there would be much worse loss of life than otherwise would exist. The WAMSO is in place to coordinate response efforts to maritime disasters, not force nations to respond to them. That being said, it has been the law of the sea for decades to help any ship in peril if it is in your power to do so, regardless of whether your ship is civilian or military. The WAMSO is there to help coordinate that effort.

(OOC: Try ‘a) When there is a significant chance of loss of life on the part of the responding nation’.)


4.a) has been changed to that

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:34 pm

Category: International Security Strength: Mild

Is this the correct category and strength for this resolution?

User avatar
Wayneactia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 537
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:24 am

New Jorsonn wrote:Category: International Security Strength: Mild

Is this the correct category and strength for this resolution?


How does this force nations to increase military and or police spending?

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:14 am

Wayneactia wrote:How does this force nations to increase military and or police spending?


It establishes an organization within the World Assembly which would necessitate funds to be allocated to it, presumably from nations' military or police budgets since it has to do with navies and coast guards.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14015
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:14 pm

New Jorsonn wrote:It establishes an organization within the World Assembly which would necessitate funds to be allocated to it, presumably from nations' military or police budgets since it has to do with navies and coast guards.

OOC: Not how it works. The funds to all committees (all organizations are, for the rules, committees) come from the General Fund, which in turn come from the general budgets of the WA nations - basically a tax thing - so the committee's spending doesn't do anything to any specific area of spending for the nations. Which is what you need to do to justify the category.

Have you looked at the existing resolutions that have to do with seas and such? I could swear there was already one out there that had to do with giving aid to vessels in distress.

But why require coast guards especially to venture outside the territorial waters? They're called coast guards for a good reason. And if some small island nation's coast guard consists of one powerboat, should they still head out to the open ocean if a massive tanker runs aground? Like, what could they do other than watch the oil slick spread? There should be an extra exception for situations where the nation's coast guard is just not equipped for anywhere near the magnitude of disaster that's happening.

You're also lacking a clause about the responding nation being able to bill the nation responsible for the ship in distress, for any damages occurring to the rescuers during the rescue operation.

EDIT: Also lacking is any mention of requiring civilian/commercial vessels rendering aid when possible as well.
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:39 am

Araraukar wrote:
New Jorsonn wrote:It establishes an organization within the World Assembly which would necessitate funds to be allocated to it, presumably from nations' military or police budgets since it has to do with navies and coast guards.


OOC: Not how it works. The funds to all committees (all organizations are, for the rules, committees) come from the General Fund, which in turn come from the general budgets of the WA nations - basically a tax thing - so the committee's spending doesn't do anything to any specific area of spending for the nations. Which is what you need to do to justify the category.

Have you looked at the existing resolutions that have to do with seas and such? I could swear there was already one out there that had to do with giving aid to vessels in distress.

But why require coast guards especially to venture outside the territorial waters? They're called coast guards for a good reason. And if some small island nation's coast guard consists of one powerboat, should they still head out to the open ocean if a massive tanker runs aground? Like, what could they do other than watch the oil slick spread? There should be an extra exception for situations where the nation's coast guard is just not equipped for anywhere near the magnitude of disaster that's happening.

You're also lacking a clause about the responding nation being able to bill the nation responsible for the ship in distress, for any damages occurring to the rescuers during the rescue operation.

EDIT: Also lacking is any mention of requiring civilian/commercial vessels rendering aid when possible as well.


1. The fund information is very useful. Does funding for the WA general fund come from a nation's foreign aid? Or does it come from what its area of effect is?

2. The existing International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) Doesn't make specific mention of vessels in danger at sea and I was unable to find any other related resolutions that specifically mentioned maritime disaster response coordination. If you know of any, please link them here.

3. There already is a clause that says that any small nation and their powerboat doesn't need to respond to a disaster where there is a significant chance of loss of life or damages of property. I will make an amendment to it that excludes nations which don't have the resources to respond to disasters from responding.

4. I see no need for a responding nation to bill a ship in distress and their nation for damages. Damages occurring at sea are acts of God and it would be wrong for a member of the WA to bill another WA nation for having done something that the WA deems mandatory.

5. You're right, civilan and commercial vessels should also be required to respond within their ability to disasters ate sea. I will make an amendment that says that.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14015
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:36 pm

New Jorsonn wrote:1. The fund information is very useful. Does funding for the WA general fund come from a nation's foreign aid? Or does it come from what its area of effect is?

OOC: Its "mandatory donations" - thinking of it as a tax that the nations don't have a choice in paying gets closest without causing a headache.

2. The existing International Transport Safety Committee (ITSC) Doesn't make specific mention of vessels in danger at sea and I was unable to find any other related resolutions that specifically mentioned maritime disaster response coordination. If you know of any, please link them here.

Have you searched the passed resolutions thread with keywords like "maritime" or "disaster" or "emergency" or "aid" or similar? Remember that it treats "disaster" and "disasters" as two unrelated words.

3. There already is a clause that says that any small nation and their powerboat doesn't need to respond to a disaster where there is a significant chance of loss of life or damages of property. I will make an amendment to it that excludes nations which don't have the resources to respond to disasters from responding.

The bit I was objecting to was the "not having resources to do anything but watch", not the chance of death and destruction, but you're fixing that, so good. :)

4. I see no need for a responding nation to bill a ship in distress and their nation for damages. Damages occurring at sea are acts of God and it would be wrong for a member of the WA to bill another WA nation for having done something that the WA deems mandatory.

Well then it's obviously your god's will that the people drown. I mean, otherwise they wouldn't be in distress to begin with, right?

In other words, for nations that are less reliant on godswill, you might want to add some clause that makes them more likely to want to risk life and equipment, especially for something outside of their own waters.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5359
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:18 pm

“In clause 3, you refer only to sea transport as needing to respond to a distress call, yet clause 4b mentions aircraft. This should be adressed.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:30 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 3, you refer only to sea transport as needing to respond to a distress call, yet clause 4b mentions aircraft. This should be adressed.”


On it

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9007
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:56 pm

I'll probably have some feedback on this maybe tomorrow.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Liberimery
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 352
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:25 am

One objection that has been brought up is that per most war conventions, not rendering aide to crews of war ships in distress when they are a hostile nation and in distress is a war crime (especially if you are the cause of an abandon ship order). The saved crew is treated as prisoners of war and the the ship itself, if salvaged, can be captured as a prize ship.

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:54 am

Liberimery wrote:One objection that has been brought up is that per most war conventions, not rendering aide to crews of war ships in distress when they are a hostile nation and in distress is a war crime (especially if you are the cause of an abandon ship order). The saved crew is treated as prisoners of war and the the ship itself, if salvaged, can be captured as a prize ship.


Excellent point. I'll address it

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5359
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:14 am

“In clause 4b, I don’t think there is a need for any ship to assist if it is unable to return for shore, regardless of reason. Therefore, the wording ‘for any reason’ could be used, as opposed to only allowing two specific examples.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:24 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 4b, I don’t think there is a need for any ship to assist if it is unable to return for shore, regardless of reason. Therefore, the wording ‘for any reason’ could be used, as opposed to only allowing two specific examples.”


Did it

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:04 pm

Final bump before submitting as a proposal

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14015
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:25 pm

OOC: Rewrite suggestion. Additions in blue, deletions in stricken red. No colour effects for changes in coding or order of clauses (word order changes do get highlighted).

The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Devoted to saving sailors and airmen imperiled on the sea

Acknowledging the inherent risk involved in conducting life-saving operations in international waters


Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

The World Assembly Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
  1. they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
  2. are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
  3. can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
  1. last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
  2. relevant communication frequencies,
  3. the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
  4. the nearest safe port available;

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.

I left out the committee entirely, because re-routing things through the committee would only slow things down in an emergency. I instead gave the immediate coordination task to nearby member nations, and had the civilian and commercial vessels to render aid on top of the official rescue efforts but only when they can safely do so. It's one thing to ask for nearby ships to render aid and quite another to require a jetliner to drop 8 kilometres of its flight height just to see if they can spot a ship in distress.

Here's the code for it without the colours:
Code: Select all
[box]The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
[list=a][*]they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
[*]are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
[*]can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;[/list]

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
[list=a][*]last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
[*]relevant communication frequencies,
[*]the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
[*]the nearest safe port available;[/list]

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.[/box]

Here's what it looks like:
The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
  1. they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
  2. are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
  3. can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
  1. last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
  2. relevant communication frequencies,
  3. the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
  4. the nearest safe port available;

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.

If you like the look, click the "select all" in the code box an then copy-paste it as the new draft in the first post.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
New Jorsonn
Secretary
 
Posts: 26
Founded: Oct 22, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby New Jorsonn » Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:33 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Rewrite suggestion. Additions in blue, deletions in stricken red. No colour effects for changes in coding or order of clauses (word order changes do get highlighted).

The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Devoted to saving sailors and airmen imperiled on the sea

Acknowledging the inherent risk involved in conducting life-saving operations in international waters


Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

The World Assembly Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
  1. they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
  2. are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
  3. can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
  1. last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
  2. relevant communication frequencies,
  3. the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
  4. the nearest safe port available;

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.

I left out the committee entirely, because re-routing things through the committee would only slow things down in an emergency. I instead gave the immediate coordination task to nearby member nations, and had the civilian and commercial vessels to render aid on top of the official rescue efforts but only when they can safely do so. It's one thing to ask for nearby ships to render aid and quite another to require a jetliner to drop 8 kilometres of its flight height just to see if they can spot a ship in distress.

Here's the code for it without the colours:
Code: Select all
[box]The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
[list=a][*]they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
[*]are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
[*]can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;[/list]

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
[list=a][*]last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
[*]relevant communication frequencies,
[*]the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
[*]the nearest safe port available;[/list]

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.[/box]

Here's what it looks like:
The World Assembly,

Committed to the safety of international shipping and fishing operations in international waters,

Understanding the importance of maritime safety to all World Assembly member nations with coastlines,

Recognizing that there are few organizations established to deal with nautical accidents in international waters,

Believing that previously passed legislation does not go far enough in terms of coordinating disaster response in international waters,

Confident that saving lives and reducing financial losses from nautical accidents is possible with increased international cooperation,

Hereby

1. Requires that member states' navies, coast guards and any similar organizations capable of responding to a declared maritime emergency in international waters, do so, provided that
  1. they have vessels appropriate for the conditions at the accident site available,
  2. are able to dispatch their vessels to the accident site in a timely manner, and
  3. can do so without significant risks to their vessels and personnel;

2. Also requires civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft to lend aid if they are capable of doing so without endangering themselves or the official rescue efforts;

3. Requires that when a maritime emergency has been declared within their reach, member nations share all pertinent information available with the responders, including but not limited to
  1. last known location, cargo manifest and passenger list of the vessel or aircraft in distress,
  2. relevant communication frequencies,
  3. the relative positions of responders to each other and the accident site, and
  4. the nearest safe port available;

4. Clarifies that responders are not to be held responsible for any damage done to the vessel or aircraft that has declared emergency, when the damages occur in order to save lives.

If you like the look, click the "select all" in the code box an then copy-paste it as the new draft in the first post.


Thanks so much for this input. I've taken it into account and made a few cosmetic changes so now I think it's time to submit.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5359
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:38 am

“Clause 2 has less circumstances than clause 1 for when vessels are allowed not to interfere, which seems counter-intuitive. Surely it should be the organisations whose purpose is to provide aid that have to do so in more circumstances, if not the same ones?”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3315
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:22 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 has less circumstances than clause 1 for when vessels are allowed not to interfere, which seems counter-intuitive. Surely it should be the organisations whose purpose is to provide aid that have to do so in more circumstances, if not the same ones?”

"Perhaps vessels that are not equipped for rescue should be considered to be endangering the rescue effort, making them exempt as per clause 2, if other ships are on the way or already there. Crowding the area with ships will do more harm than good if those ships cannot lend significant aid.
It should be noted that they would still be obligated to respond if no other help is coming, which I believe is a good thing."
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

Telconi wrote:My point is that believing scientists is bad. And people ought not do this thing.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14015
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:00 pm

New Jorsonn wrote:I've taken it into account and made a few cosmetic changes so now I think it's time to submit.

OOC: It's not. I was just too tired to come back online last night to fix the errors I realized I'd accidentally introduced in the new draft.

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 2 has less circumstances than clause 1 for when vessels are allowed not to interfere, which seems counter-intuitive. Surely it should be the organisations whose purpose is to provide aid that have to do so in more circumstances, if not the same ones?”

IC: "You mean fewer circumstances. Also, you're confusing requiring and allowing. Nothing in clause one or two forbids rescue efforts that endanger the rescuers. It simply does not require them to put themselves in danger."

(OOC: This is one of the errors I mentioned, the "civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft" in the draft should actually read "civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft, that are registered in a member state, and which find themselves in the vicinity of the accident site" to mean that if they're already there, especially nearer than any of the official aid, then they should help if it's safe for them to do so. That's how it works in RL, so it clearly works.)

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:"Perhaps vessels that are not equipped for rescue should be considered to be endangering the rescue effort, making them exempt as per clause 2, if other ships are on the way or already there. Crowding the area with ships will do more harm than good if those ships cannot lend significant aid."

IC: "They certainly can be, but even if an oil tanker had no way to pick people out of the water, if they're the first on the scene, they could at the very least throw flotation devices to people in water, or communicate the exact location of survivors to other responders."
Last edited by Araraukar on Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaschovia

Advertisement

Remove ads